ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH
ASIAN AFFAIRS EDWARD DJEREJIAN BRIEFING ON THE EIGHTH ROUND OF
THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS
Time: 1 p.m.
Location: State Department, 2201 C St. NW
December 18, 1992
EDWARD DJEREJIAN (assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern and
South Asian Affairs): Before I take your questions, I want to underscore
several points flowing from the president's meetings with the
delegations to the Arab-Israeli peace talks, and from the round of
negotiations which have just ended.
First, the statement we issued yesterday addressed fully our views about
the violence directed against Israel and Israel's response to that
violence.
Second, at the White House meetings President Bush reiterated to all his
Arab and Israeli interlocutors, a key point, which was made also by the
delegations themselves, and by the Palestinians he met with this
morning, that the only real way out of the violence and conflict that
both the Arabs and Israelis suffer under is the peace process.
It was acknowledged that it is the only chance the parties have to reach
a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace under United Nations Security
Council resolutions 242 and 338. The president urged that the parties
remain seriously engaged in the negotiations to narrow the gaps between
them in future rounds, and to maintain the momentum of the talks. The
president expressed his deep concern over those groups that are opposed
to the peace process, and which resort to acts of violence to disrupt
it. They should not be given the opportunity to succeed. He made clear
that all efforts to frustrate the peace process must be dealt with and
all parties must publicly condemn the resort to violence. No one should
play into the hands of the extremists.
The president underscored the strong United States' position both in
opposition to acts of violence in Israel and the occupied territories
and in opposition to deportations. All the parties expressed their
continuing commitment to the peace process, and to the central role of
the United States as a co- sponsor, honest broker, catalyst, and driving
force of the peace process. And I want to stress that all the parties
made this clear.
On Lebanon, the president underscored the United States's strong support
of Lebanon's independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty.
Now third, with regard to the negotiations themselves, I'd like to make
a few comments. The issue, quite frankly, is not whether the glass is
half full or half empty. Each party attaches its own interpretation at
any given moment. The real issue is whether the glass is filling. The
United States believes it is, and let me explain why.
In each negotiation the parties have identified and formalized in their
discussions the three core elements which need to be addressed before
real peace can be achievedthat is, peace, security and territory. For
example, the Jordanian-Israeli negotiations have included serious talks
among experts on economic issues, water, and the environment. The two
sides are working hard to conclude work on a substance agenda that will
point the way to serious negotiations.
Israelis and Palestinians have debated their respective concepts of
self-government as well as key issues related to land, jurisdiction, and
human rights. They are working productively on a substantive agenda.
Israel and Syria are hard at work to craft a joint declaration of
principles which will guide the negotiations that follow. They have
engaged intensively on all elements of U.N. Security Council resolutions
242 and 338, and have stated their strong commitment to try and narrow
the substantive differences between them.
Israel and Lebanon are working on ways to engage in security talks among
military experts while elaborating the political context under which the
talks can proceed. With serious and constructive work already under way,
the challenge now for the parties is how to meet their mutual
requirements on these issues.
The negotiations, both the bilaterals and the multilaterals, have
demonstrated that they can solve problems. For example, there has been
positive evolution on the question of Palestinian participation in the
multilaterals and bilaterals. Many of these problems have been
procedural in character but this is a first step. The challenge now is
to solve the substantive problems. The negotiations have demonstrated
great resiliency in the face of extremist threats from many quarters.
These negotiations have taken root in the region. Our challenge is to
ensure that these roots grow deeper and resist the efforts of the
enemies of peace who seek to destroy the chances for peace. In the
multilaterals, Arabs and Israelis are discussing a variety of practical
projects and activities in such diverse areas as economic development,
water, environment and arms control and regional security. In this way
they are beginning to see the potential benefits of what peace can
bring.
And I can tell you that those discussions in those working groups are
indeed very serious and progress is being made. Now, does this mean that
we, the United States, is satisfied with what has been produced? Of
course not. We need more progress and we need actual agreements. At the
same time it is impossible to take a 40 year old conflict and expect to
resolve it quickly. What we do have a year after Madrid are viable
negotiations and political commitment by all the parties as I stated,
which have been reiterated to the president in his meetings yesterday
and today.
All the parties are focused on the right issues and are committed to
proceed. With enough determination these negotiations can succeed. In
deed, we believe that 1993 can be a year of real achievement. I'd be
happy to take any questions you have.
Q: Ed, can I just ask youwe've now been at this for a year and you say
that after a year's straining the three parties have now come up with
the three core elements which are peace, security and territory. Wasn't
that reasonably obvious to a reasonably bright 8th grader about a year
ago that these were the three core issues? Why has it taken a year to
get to this point and why do we say that this is a harbinger of
progress?
DJEREJIAN: Well, it hasn't taken a year to get to the point where
they're discussing these three issues. They've been discussing these
three issues for several of the last rounds. What we're seeing is, as
this process has evolved that in the beginning we were faced with
enumerable procedural issues, which as you know, took a little time to
resolve from the beginning and let's not forget the beginning where we
couldn't get one of the delegations off the couch in the lobby of the
State Department to go into the negotiating room. But that's way past
and in the interim what we have is that each track and each track is
different, has been seriously engaged on these core issues and they
havethey are joining these issues and progress is being made.
In fact, in the detailed negotiations that are taking place, this last
round we have seen incremental progress in some of the tracks. I can't
get into all the details of exactly what is being done because we do
have to maintain a bit of confidentiality on exactly what is being
discussed and how the parties are dealing with it. But what it seems to
me is that from our vantage point as a co-sponsor who is directly
involved in nurturing these talks and seeing them proceed that we know
that a basis has been built upon now for sustained progress in the near
future.
Q: Ed, you know that the heads of the Arab delegations held a news
conference about two hours ago at the National Press Club and that
essentially they are saying the opposite of what you just said here
which is what they're saying is that essentially there has been no
progress, particularly in the last two rounds, and they go further,
saying that the United States has been in effect deceived by the Rabin
government, which is not doing what it said to the Israeli voters and to
the American administration what it would do. Are they just wrong or are
you too rosy in your scenario?
DJEREJIAN: Well, we certainly have no intent to come out and paint any
rosy scenarios. We think we're being very objective in our assessment of
the peace process. It would serve absolutely no interest on the part of
the co-sponsor to come out here and paint a picture that is not a
realistic one. We think indeed we're in the best vantage point to
objectively assess what is being done and what is not being done. I in
no way am diminishing the fact that there are very important substantive
gaps that have to be narrowed in each one of these negotiations. But
what we see and what we know is happening is that these serious issues
are not only being engaged but that we've seen incremental progress in
this last round and in the previous one on some of the most important
ones.
Now, I know that there is a tendency in some of these press statements
that others are giving to accentuate the negative. I'm not here to
accentuate either the negative or the positive. I'm here to give you the
co-sponsors' best reading of where these negotiations are, and I believe
that what I have described is where these negotiations realistically
are.
Q: Well, could I, if I could just follow the core of
DJEREJIAN: What you're probably seeing and hearing are voices of
frustration that more progress has not been made. And we understand
that. I think we all would like to see more progress. There's no
question about that. But I would not confound voices of frustration over
more progress not being made with what is actually being done at the
table.
And the other factor, which I think is very important, is thatand as
you all very well knowthis process has been severely tested by events
in the region and by pressures emanating from a host of political and
other factors. And yet we have heard, as recently as yesterday and
today, the sustained commitment of the parties to see this process
through. In fact it was told to the president in various dramatic ways,
by all the delegations, that really, this process is the only chance.
Q: If I could just follow up, the corollary of what the Arabs were
saying is that they think the United States should play a more active
direct mediation role, and they say that it's not necessary to go into
the negotiating room and get the permission of both parties. You could
sit down in the cafeteria and talk to them face to face, using an
informal negotiation, mediation process. But anyway, have you considered
such an informal intervention?
DJEREJIAN: Let me put it this way. We have been very active in each one
of the tracks with the negotiating parties, in promoting forward
movement, in expressing our ideas on how to narrow gaps, and in trying
to facilitate contact and communication in various ways. We have been,
quite frankly, active in every way other than being at the negotiating
table itself. But I'm going to leave it at that.
Q: Do you agree with the assessment voiced by the PLO, that unless the
deportations are reserved the talks cannot continue? And then flowing
from that is a question: is it not time for the United States to resume
its dialogue with the PLO in order to strengthen its hand vis-a-vis
these extremist forces who are trying to disrupt the process?
DJEREJIAN: Well, in response to your first question we think that the
focal point should be following through on a sustained commitment to
these negotiations that we heard from all the delegations. The response
is not to walk away from the table. The response to the violence, and to
all the grievances of the parties, is to totally commit themselves to
this peace process which is really the only viable way out. That's my
response to the first question. The response to the second question is
that there's absolutely no consideration in the United States government
being given to a resumption of the dialogue with the PLO.
Q: Can I follow up on that question about the PLO. Specifically in the
meeting today with Bush, did the Palestinian delegation tell you that
they would be prepared for a next round, or did they say that unless the
deportations were reversed, they could not come and sit down with the
Israelis again?
DJEREJIAN: I do not recall any categoric statements of that nature being
made. There was certainly a great deal of the deep concern expressed by
the Palestinians on the deportation orders, and they stated that this
was a very serious blow to the peace process in their analysis. But at
the same time they made clear their serious commitment to the peace
process, and to the absolute necessity of making progress in that
process, and also alleviating the conditions of the inhabitants of the
occupied territories. Those were the major points they made.
Q: Can I follow up on that? How seriously do you take the statement out
of Tunis by a PLO spokesman, that in fact they can't resume negotiations
until the deportations are reversed?
DJEREJIAN: Well, I haven't seen that statement, but the point is that
the position of the United States is as I've expressed it in my opening
remarks, that the peace process is the way to go. It's the only way to
go. And having heard the sustained commitment of all the parties to this
process, we will certainly encourage everyone to come to the next round
prepared to make progress. Ralph?
Q: Can I follow up on that question for a second? The president had a
full-blown photo opportunity today with the two Palestinians with whom
other U.S. officials have been meeting for some time. Those two
Palestinians came to Washington from Tunis, from a meeting with Yasser
Arafat and PLO leaders. They are leaving from Washington to Tunis to
meet with Arafat and other PLO leaders. There's an old saying about if
it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. In what way
is the dialogue President Bush had in a very public way for the first
time today with these two officials not a dialogue with the PLO?
DJEREJIAN: The answer is simple, Ralph. It is simply not a dialogue with
the PLO. The people with whom the president met does not constitute a
U.S. dialogue with the PLO in any way or fashion.
Q: Now you're the host country. Did you invite the delegations to come
back and to resume the talks? And another question about Jerusalem. I
understood that the question of Jerusalem was raised by the Palestinians
and there was a reaction from the president. Would you tell us about
this?
DJEREJIAN: Well, I'm not going to get into everything that was raised in
these exchanges with the president. The issue of Jerusalem was raised.
In terms of the next round, we have consulted with all the parties. I
met with the delegations and we have discussed next steps. No decisions
have been taken as to when a next round will be convened, but we will be
in very close contact with the parties in making that determination.
Q: There's talk of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel for
the deportations. Is the United States prepared to support such a
resolution?
DJEREJIAN: Well, right now our ambassador to the United Nations is under
instructions to discuss, as we speak, with the members of the Security
Council the text of such a resolution, and we're in the midst of very
intensive discussions and negotiations on this right now. Our position
is basically as we stated in the statement that was issued this morning
to you.
Q: Can we deal with that piece of paper which was handed out last night?
The issue of deportations was handled this time almost word for word in
a way that it has been handled before, yet quantitatively this is such a
gigantic step for Israel to take this many people and force them out of
the country. I'm curious why the level of response from the U.S.
government is so measured when quantitatively what has happened over
there is quite different than we have seen before.
DJEREJIAN: Well, I think, John, that we basically, when you say the
position of the United States is so measured, basically the position of
the United States is very consistent, both in our position towards the
violence and our position towards deportations, and I think that's a
very clear and a very strong position.
Q: But you're not acknowledging the magnitude of the step that Israel
has taken this time vis-a-vis past steps. There's no difference in the
U.S. response whether one person is thrown out or 418 are thrown out. Is
there not a difference in those two situations?
DJEREJIAN: I think our statement not only speaks for itself but is a
very consistent reflection of U.S. policy on these issues of violence
and deportations.
Q: So you don't see any difference in throwing one person out
DJEREJIAN: You're trying to put words in my mouth and I'm saying that
our position is very clear, it's stated in a very declarative way and
it's a very strong statement.
Q: Can you tell us about the contacts? Have there been any high level
contacts with Prime Minister Rabin to discuss the level of this action
and what steps the U.S. would like the Israeli government to take?
DJEREJIAN: Well, ever since midweek we've been in very close contact
with the Israeli government at the highest levels.
Q: Has President Bush talked with Prime Minister Rabin?
DJEREJIAN: I'm not going to get into the exact communications, but at
the highest levels of both sides of the government. And we have made our
views directly known to all the parties, including the Israelis, and
there has been very close contact ever since Wednesday.
Q: Is it the highest level?
DJEREJIAN: There was a message that was sent by Secretary Eagleburger.
Q: That's the highest?
DJEREJIAN: That's what I'm saying. I think that's pretty high.
Q: On the basis of what you've heard in public and in private from the
delegations, how do you characterize the state of the negotiations? Have
they been dealt a fatal blow? Are they mortally wounded? Are they going
forward at some other time?
DJEREJIAN: The state of the negotiations? Again, given my remarks, I
think the conclusion that we are conveying is that indeed real progress
has been made in these talks, that these talks arein no way would I
characterize these talks as fatally flawed. Indeed, I would say that we
have seen through the sustained commitment of the parties, through thick
and thin, progress being made, and quite frankly I would not conclude
that there's a real possibility of achieving real peace next year, if we
thought these talks were in any way fatally flawed.
Q: (inaudible) real progress next year?
DJEREJIAN: I think it's, as I stated in my remarks, that these
negotiations can succeed, and we believe that 1993 could be a year of
real achievement.
END BRIEFING